While politicians are often regarded as verbose - especially in their attempts to answer the question they would prefer to have been asked rather than the one actually posed to them - the media that surrounds us is increasingly visual. Within the final week of campaigning it is interesting to consider the type of imagery, both official and unofficial, that seems to have dominated the 2015 election.

So, without further ado, let me introduce you to the wonderful, surreal world of satirical songs with my five favourite You Tube hits looking at UKIP. They're all not only political but quite good fun as well.

Let me make this quite clear to those married men who might be reading: when we're all dolled up, out on the tiles with our cleavage packaged alluringly in satin, clutching an expensive cocktail in our newly manicured paws, we do not want to talk to you.

Set up your own 'comedian' page on Facebook if you like, but until you are writing 'comedian' in your passport it's just a hobby. It's an expensive one too. Getting to gigs isn't cheap, and if like me you live outside of shitty London and are permanently skint it rules out a lot of opportunities.

These rules aren't instructions on how to be funny. They certainly won't stop anyone taking offence. These rules are, however, a statement of what I hope is a reasonably clear moral position which preserves the right to criticise and caricature in such a way that the ideals of a liberal society are still upheld.

The territory with the least appreciated melancholy, perhaps, is reality TV. One of The Office's masterstrokes was it tapped into the (at the time) growing, Warholian trend of shows from which people became famous for being themselves rather than playing a fictional character.

Surely, we do not have to view them as a Hobson's choice? What we should focus on instead is the harder - and much harsher - question of whether we as followers of a religion or as advocates of free speech can coexist too?

It is worth remembering that satirical artists should be ever mindful of the need to root themselves with care and intelligence in the fast-shifting political landscape of the 21st century so that their pictures might clearly speak the phrases that we sometimes cannot.

The shootings in Paris have reaffirmed the importance of free speech. No one should have to pay such a high price for simple mockery. Though it has left me wondering, would people my age have printed the cartoons of Mohammed in the first place?

Yet it's probably fair to say that half the people outside of France writing 'Je Suis Charlie' on their twitter feeds had not heard of the magazine before last Wednesday, and I was certainly one of them.

Following the tragic events in Paris last week, an alleged terrorist expert by the name of Steven Emerson appeared on Fox News over the weekend and proclaimed that there were areas of London that had Muslim gangs patrolling the streets to enforce an Islamic dress-code as well as incredibly writing off entire cities such as Birmingham as being entirely Muslim.

I don't doubt many people would have found the Charlie Hebdo cartoons extremely offensive, and I'm not here to tell you that's wrong, but the insinuation that insulting/offending people may have invited this horrific tragedy on any level is tantamount in my eyes to the old age adage that a rape victim "asked for it" by wearing a short skirt. It's victim blaming at its very worst, and especially against people who fought in many ways for the rights of those who attacked them. So long as offence remains within the bounds of what is legally acceptable, then it is just that - acceptable - whether you personally like it or not.

The attacks on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo have once again thrust open the freedom of expression versus freedom of religion debate in our society. Where does one freedom end and the other begin? And perhaps more crucially, should this latest attack force us to reconsider our limits?